«Либеральный патернализм»: крестьянский вопрос до и после 1861 года в литературе и в действительности
In the huge literature on the “peasant issue” one of its important aspects still remains unstudied—the elite’s vision of the ideal liberated peasant. Whom a former serf was expected to become: a rationalized market producer, a bearer of historical values and traditions, or a small proprietor resistant to revolutionary ideas? What notions and stereotypes influenced this vision? The article examines the impact of various ideological doctrines on the concept of “special Russian way” from serfdom to modernity. There existed two different ways of looking at homo rusticus originated from Western Europe and very common for pre-reform Russia. The first regarded peasant as a rational individual, subject to all natural and universal economic laws while the second, romantic one, stressed its patriarchal simplicity and the ancient cultural “roots”. It was a contradictory combination of these visions that generated many myths and symbols of peasant emancipation.
This article is a transcript of the round table at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation on March 27, which focused on the comparative analysis of the strategic directions of post-socialist rural development in the People’s Republic of China, the Polish People’s Republic and the Russian Federation. Professor Roman Kisiel made a presentation on the problems of Polish rural economy; professor Yan Hairong highlighted the dialectics of contradictions between collective and private farming in China. To a certain extent the Russian scientists L.D. Boni, V.V. Babashkin, and A.V. Gordon became the co-presenters of the Polish and Chinese colleagues when discussing such problems of rural development as the interaction of large and small-scale agrarian production, capitalist, family and collective forms of agriculture, economy and ecology, the city and village, and especially the national agrarian policies regulating all the above. In many ways, China and Poland turned out to be the poles of political and social-cultural agrarian transformations, which determine possible variations of regional models of rural-urban development in Russia. The round table discussion can be useful not only for academic scientists, but also for practitioners involved in developing state and municipal agrarian policies that are to take into account international agrarian experience.
This work deals with key aspects of the Stalin’s policy in relation to the village in the Ural in the 1930s. Based on a large documentary material, the author examines in detail both social and property status of the ‘dekulakized peasants’ of the Ural, which, by 1932, had become the largest area of labor settlements. Special attention is paid to the methodological issues of the study, in particular, to the justification of the representativeness concerning the selection of households prepared, its further evolution in the course of the work, as well as laying special emphasis on the multidimensional typology of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants.
Three e-prosopographical databases were created – ‘Dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural (1930-1934)’ based on 34 parameters for 1461 ‘dekulakized’ families; ‘Labor settlers in the Southern Ural (1930-1934)’ based on 20 parameters for 1200 families of the labor settlers; and ‘Dekulakized’ peasants of the Orenburg region (1930-1934)’ based on 34 parameters for 210 families of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants. Databases in question have become a tool for analysis of the generalized characteristics of the ‘dekulakized’ households and the subsequent reconstruction of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural and the Orenburg region.
Causes and reasons for ‘dekulakization’ were analyzed. Thus, according to the documents, the policy of the country administration had been reciprocated neither by peasants, who could not understand why they were taken the last piece of bread at hungry times and denied the opportunity to raise the economy of the households, nor by the local leaders, who had periodically ‘perverted’ the party line, which turned out to be not so direct as it was seen from the Center.
As in the whole throughout the country, in the Southern Ural, the ‘dekulakization’ campaign, reinforced by the famine of 1932-1933, has affected not only the rich peasant families (they obviously would not be enough to perform ‘the control figures’), but wealthy medium peasant households, as well, that, on the one hand, has neutralized property differentiation of the peasantry, preparing the appropriate soil for the functioning of the collective farms, and on the other hand, has significantly slowed down the rate of growth of the agricultural production, destroying entrepreneurial initiative, which became stronger during the NEP, and significantly shaking the trust of the peasants to the country administration.
For eight decades of the study of various aspects of the history of the Soviet ‘dekulakization’, an extensive and diverse literature was developed, hundreds of studies were written, among which the works of the following authors are of particular note: V. P. Danilov, N. A. Ivnitskiy, Y.A. Moshkov, N.L. Rogalina, T.I. Slavko, N.Y. Gushchin, V.V. Kondrashin, etc. So much academic interest in the topic can be explained very simply: by 1926, 73% of the USSR population was presented by peasants, and the policy, pursued by the government, could not have been affected such huge population in the most devastating way, especially given the traditionally strong relationship between peasant families.
Historiography of the ‘dekulakization’ issue at the present stage is concentrated towards the revision of the estimates based on multiple vectors, including both identification of social groups and layers, on which repressions were directed, and personification of ‘dekulakization’ in the fate of certain families.
In the present work, we focused on social and economic aspects of collectivization and ‘dekulakization’ of the peasantry of the Ural, as well as reconstruction of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural and the Orenburg region.
The book is designed both for specialists in economic and social history of the USSR, and a wide readership interested in the Stalin’s collectivization and ‘dekulakization’ in the 1930s.
Along with the fast growing economy, the term «BRICs» was coined to represent the newly emerging countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China. The enhanced economy in these countries has largely improved peoples life; at the same time, it has also strongly influenced the transformation of social structure, norms and values. However, as the worlds attention centers on their economic development at the micro level, the social changes at the micro level have often been neglected, and a specific comparative study of these four countries is even more rare. This handbooks contributing authors are leading sociologists in the four countries. They fill the gap in existing literature and examine specifically the changes in each society from the perspective of social stratification, with topics covering the main social classes, the inequality of education and income, and the different styles of consumption as well as the class consciousness and values. Under every topic, it gathers articles from authors of each country. Such a comparative study could not only help us achieve a better understanding of the economic growth and social development in these countries, but also lead us to unveil the mystery of how these emerging powers with dramatic differences in history, geography, culture, language, religion and politics could share a common will and take joint action. In general, the handbook takes a unique perspective to show readers that it is the profound social structural changes in these countries that determine their future, and to a large extent, will shape the socio-economic landscape of the future world.
The article, based on archives materials, analyzes a reaction of the victims of repressive policy (peasants and their home-folks) in Perm Region to the beginning of «dekulakisation» and expulsion, also discovers the motives of peasants' complaints to the authorities.